Downing Street Christmas Parties

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely hope that that would be the case. Obviously, the Cabinet Secretary is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry. He is the senior civil servant and will own the responsibility to which the noble Baroness referred. I should make it clear—following on from something that I did not reply to from the noble Lord—that the terms of reference, which I will lay in the Library of your Lordships’ House later today if they are not there now, will make it clear that where there are credible allegations relating to other gatherings, these may be investigated.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose that it is really not surprising that the Labour Party should try to make so much political hay out of this, as it has done this afternoon. But in this House we can take a more measured view of these events. As my noble friend the Minister has just announced in his repeated Statement, the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to make an investigation, where he will come out with the full facts. Therefore, the allegations that have been made cannot really be relied on until we have seen the results of that investigation. Would it not be a good idea for everybody, not least in this House, to wait until we have seen the results before making any more comment?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend is entirely right—he perhaps put it more elegantly than I did—that there is a political strand to this. In this country, there is an ancient presumption that people are innocent until proved guilty, and I believe that it would not be appropriate to comment on or prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. I will hold to that position.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, that must have been a very satisfying speech for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to make—I can see that he enjoyed it. It might have been shorter if he had simply stood up and said, “I told you so.”

I support the support the Bill as well. Our lives would of course be considerably easier if all Bills were introduced like this, largely supported by the Opposition and unamended in the House of Commons. It puts a wrong right and takes us back to where we were before. It is admirably clear in its intention and impact. While I accept that there are some aspects of detail that are controversial, I hope that the Government will not be swayed from their course of action.

As part of the good will that existed at that heady time of excitement at the creation of the coalition, post the general election of 2010, I was persuaded that the Liberal Democrats had some ideas that needed to be tested by experience, and so the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was created. It was something that I supported, despite my earlier scepticism. However, the events of 2017 and 2019 showed that the Act was insufficiently flexible to meet our constitutional arrangements. It gave power to the courts and to the House of Commons, it created a muddle and it was also unnecessary. This Bill returns us to the clarity that we previously enjoyed. In this House, I believe that one of our overriding objectives should be to provide that kind of clarity and simplicity.

Of course, there will be those who urge conditions on the workings of the Bill through the House of Commons—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has—and indeed the courts. I urge the Minister to ignore their blandishments, however elegantly they are made.

The Bill deals with the whole question of when elections are called. I believe that we should do nothing to put hurdles in the way of people using their vote. “Trust the people” might sound like a cheap political slogan, but it is the cornerstone on which our constitution is built. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, put it very well when he said that there was a fundamental right to vote, but I part company with him after that.

We should do everything to make sure that our system of dissolving Parliament and calling an election is very clear and well understood by the people of this country. This Bill does just that and should be supported.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord opposite’s assertion, which seems one of the most sweeping examples of the generalisation of a particular that I have ever heard. He may have a case in mind. The correspondence on that case has been published with proper transparency, and for my part I welcome the presence of that new Peer in this House.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not realise that the best way of solving the problem presented by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Blunkett, is to fulfil the promise—laid out in the Parliament Act 1911 and successive recent manifestos of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—to select this House on the basis of popular representation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as we look forward, clearly that is an option for considering reform. I do not note enormous enthusiasm for that in the many debates in your Lordships’ Chamber. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that everybody opposite campaigned in 2019 on the creation of an elected senate.

Size of the House of Lords

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, for the reason I have just given. The noble Lord speaks with the strength of 86 Liberal Democrat Peers behind him. At the rate of retirement we have seen recently, it would be some time in the 2060s before their representation was reduced to that awarded to them by the British people in the House of Commons in 2019. Maybe there is another aspect of your Lordships’ composition that might be examined.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I really hope that the Government have not lost their enthusiasm for proper reform of this House but, given that over the last 20 years there have been a tiny number of Divisions of over 600, I cannot really see what the problem of numbers actually is. Being a practical person, has my noble friend considered the relevance of asking the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee to look again at the whole subject of age limits in this House, as so many other professions are legislated with age limits?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, of course I was struck by what my noble friend said in the debate on the gracious Speech last week and some of the striking figures he gave then. Having said that the Government are not looking for piecemeal change, I will not follow him directly, but it is of course a fact that somewhere above 110 Members of your Lordships’ House are over 80.

Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con) [V]]

My Lords, when my noble friend the Minister is discussing the terms of reference for this commission, will he also consider the case for examining political interference by the judiciary, and for looking at the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the possibility of the role of Lord Chancellor returning to this House permanently?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I cannot anticipate the scope of the commission at this point. Of course, like my noble friend, I well remember the appalling events when the Lord Chancellor’s office was abolished by a press release from No. 10. I assure noble Lords that the commission will be proceeded with in a more thoughtful and sensitive fashion.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

2A: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert “and create a statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission”

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2A is not on the Marshalled List. I apologise; it was tabled rather late yesterday and I did not have an opportunity to discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I had a eureka moment in my bath yesterday morning, when I was thinking about the noble Lord and his Bill, and came to the conclusion that it was an appropriate way to deal with this legislation and solve a very serious lacuna at the heart of the Bill.

Before I go on, I join my noble friend Lord Cormack in saying how right it is that this House should stop at 11 am for one minute to mark the terrible attacks in New Zealand. I hope that my noble friend Lord Young will direct us at a suitable time so that we can honour that moment with appropriate dignity.

Given the sort of parliamentary chaos that has been going on over the past couple of weeks in another place, it is wonderfully reassuring for people to come to this House and find that we can have a straightforward debate—one we have held many times in the past 20 years—discussing in detail how to progress with reforming your Lordships’ House.

As the House knows, I have been involved in many such debates, as has the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill during this Session. I have no idea how long this Session will last, but even if it lasts just another couple of months, I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is extremely unlikely that this legislation will get into law. I do not know whether we will finish Report today or when the Bill will receive its Third Reading. However, to be clear, I oppose the legislation because it would create a wholly appointed House. As the House knows, I am broadly in favour of politicians in the United Kingdom being elected, not appointed, but I know that that is not a popular view in this House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

If my noble friend is so certain that the Bill will not make it on to the statute book, why on earth is he moving this amendment?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I was just about to come to that. My amendment is small and humble but it deals with an important issue. As it is unlikely to become law, we now have time to study it in some detail—if the principle behind it is accepted today, as I hope it will be—before Third Reading, when we can add detail to it. I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to clarify that.

What is the most difficult part of this Bill? It is the third and fourth lines of Clause 1, which say,

“thereby making the House of Lords a wholly appointed Second Chamber”.

This is the central part of the legislation, to which I would like to add the words,

“and create a statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission”.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and for his integrity and tenacity in coming back time after time with this legislation. However, it is a profoundly political Bill. In Committee, my noble friend Lord True explained why that was. By doing this, we will remove the ability of 40-plus Conservative Members of this House to replace themselves without a guarantee that they would be replaced in any other shape. I wholly understand why the noble Lord thinks that is a desirable outcome, and I hope he will understand why I think it is an undesirable outcome. He certainly does not duck the issue. The noble Lord is completely up front about his objective.

The lacuna at the heart of the Bill is that it removes the ability to have hereditary by-elections but does absolutely nothing to improve the way others are appointed to this House. I want to put that right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will agree with me that it is something we need to tackle, and why not tackle it in this Bill? It has been promised for more than 20 years by the party that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, supported so ably in government. It appeared in several White Papers in the early part of the century. Now is the opportunity to debate it further and, I hope, to put it in this Bill. I have said that it is a humble amendment but it deals with a big issue, and I hope very much that the House will accept at least the principle behind it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, has the noble Lord been advised that his amendment is within the purposes of the Bill?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I went to the Public Bill Office to put the amendment down, and it took the clerk about 10 seconds to agree that it was entirely in order. It might also be worth flagging up that my noble friend Lord Caithness, after Clause 3, has a very substantial amendment, Amendment 59, which seeks to amend the Bill to include a fully thought through appointments commission. I think it is in order but if the noble Lord feels that it is out of order in any way, I will certainly listen to his argument.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have to say that the loss of 40 Conservative hereditary Peers may not be greeted with great sorrow all around the House. Can he tell me how many years he would expect it to take to lose the total of 40? I suspect it would be many years.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not an actuary but I am sure there are actuarial tables that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will have looked at in the course of his report. But what the noble Lord’s question really begs is that he does not believe that there will ever be any long-term reform of this House. I have not given up hope. One of the few things that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I agree on is that that is a very desirable way to go forward. I accept that it is unlikely to happen in this Session of Parliament, or indeed in the next, but that does not mean that we should give up on that ability. My fear is that once we have a wholly nominated House, that will be it for another 100 years, and I am not in favour of that.

As the House knows, in 1999 we had a two-stage reform.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to intervene for long, but I am in rather a strange position. As a life Peer, having stood down as a hereditary Peer and been elected to this House, I have the issue that my son could stand on the hereditary Peer list. Obviously I have had to explain to him that I will have to be dead first—that is the way of it. But I question the noble Lord’s premise. In 1999, the number of Conservative Peers was set just because that happened to be the percentage of the number of Peers there were at the time. That of course led to the Liberal Democrats having only three. If the same situation arose today and was based on the number of Peers, we would have a larger proportion. Is he saying that, as a matter of luck, the Tory party ended up with a large number of hereditary Peers who will carry on for ever and that should be the basis going forward, or is he suggesting that perhaps we should rejig the number of hereditary Peers available to other parties?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I wholly accept that everyone thought that the hereditary Peer by-elections would never actually occur because they would kick in, if I may use that term, during only one Session after the subsequent general election that took place in 2001. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, looked me in the eye when he made this agreement and said, “These things will never happen because we intend to come forward with proper reform early in the next Parliament”. I accepted that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is always entertaining to hear a Liberal Democrat talking about the disparity of numbers in this House: need I say more? Whether it was luck or a matter of fact, those figures for the hereditary Peers were set at the time and no one thought that they would continue. But they are set now and my point to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is that if you take away the hereditaries’ ability to remove themselves and put nothing else in place, that could create a long-term unfairness, which I will deal with in a moment.

Post 1999 we were promised a second-stage reform, but we are not there yet. The by-elections are a central reminder of that failure. As well as being a nod to the past, I think the new hereditary Peers are perfectly capable people and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has been at pains to say that there is no personal attack on hereditary Peers or their heirs; these are much more principled objections. But if we are stuck with this halfway house, we must deal with some of these issues. For the noble Lord that means the by-elections, while for me it means an appointments commission set up on a statutory basis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. Would his statutory commission apply just to Cross-Bench Peers, as now, or does he see it applying to party Peers too? He will know that there was a big debate when the commission was set up on a non-statutory basis about whether it would apply party Peers. Indeed, there was a radical idea that the commission itself, rather than the party leaders, should nominate the party Peers. Has the noble Lord given any thought to this idea, because the scope of his commission is an important question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I stand shoulder to shoulder in our radicalism. I would want a statutory appointments commission to do exactly that: to appoint all Peers to this House apart from the Lords spiritual, who of course get here in an entirely different way. At the moment the Bishops have their own route in and the hereditary Peers have their by-elections. The HOLAC nominations come in, but the overwhelming majority of new life Peers who come to this House arrive through the political route, advised and guided by the Prime Minister, who no doubt takes soundings and recommendations from other party leaders. This is the reason for the change. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is asking his question at exactly the right time because it is the time for radicalism on this.

I shall make some further points. First, nothing I say is a criticism of the current system championed by HOLAC. It does an excellent job and is led by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. However, HOLAC is not statutorily based. The commission can be abolished or its remit can be changed at any stage. Since I feel that in recent years our constitutional arrangements have become more fluid, in a sort of make-it-up-as-you-go-along mood, there is a real danger over the next few years, if we accept the case for a wholly appointed House, that a Prime Minister could well use those ancient constitutional powers to increase the House of Lords on a party basis. Remember, this has been threatened in the past. If we are to create a wholly appointed or wholly nominated House, we need new protection.

My humble aim today is to get the principle of this agreed—I cannot imagine that anybody would want to oppose it, but in this House you never know—and then to join others, including my noble friends and perhaps the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Adonis, to look at what has been written about this in the past and to come up with an amendment at Third Reading that might appeal to noble Lords across the House and to the Government. To those who might say that it would be inappropriate to table such an amendment at Third Reading, I say that obviously I would not do it if it were not clearly in the rules. We might even be able to recommit that new clause at Third Reading. I hope the House would regard that not as a constitutional innovation—it is not—but as an opportunity to debate in detail what I would propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but I was trying for the convenience of the House to speed things up a bit. If we talked to both amendments now, as I have done, it might be helpful.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, perhaps I may now be allowed to join this debate. I said in my opening remarks that I had not spoken in this debate at all; I had tabled one small amendment on which I was about to reply. If my noble friend Lord Cormack thinks that what he did was a clever little ploy, he has another think coming. As a result of that, I shall now speak on every single amendment that I can. It was outrageous for those who support this Bill to deny me, as the mover of the previous amendment, an opportunity to reply, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had electrified the debate on the purposes of the Bill and, frankly, had shot the fox of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in explaining exactly what its motivation was. That is why I am deeply shocked that so many Peers voted against that amendment, which would have provided for a statutory appointments commission.

I would like to calm things down while we go through the rest of the amendments. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked Peers to declare whether they were hereditary Peers, I rather cheered that he could not tell the difference. That is the point. I know exactly why I am here. I am here as a result of legislation passed at the end of the last century and by election. I am an elected hereditary Peer under law. More than 200 hereditary Peers voted for me, and in that list I came second.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords, I am not going to give way to the noble Lord until I have finished this point. I was proud to have come second to my late noble friend Lord Ferrers—I hope that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is not going to argue with me about that—and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne was third. I hope that the next time the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, gets up, he will tell us in some detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, did, why he is a Member of this House. Let every other noble Lord who is going to speak declare their interest and explain what brought them to this House and who ticked that box. I am happy now to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

[Lord Grocott]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for lowering the temperature. Perhaps we have had just enough of this faux anger. I was going to point out how lucky he was to be elected with 200 votes, because when I first stood in Lichfield and Tamworth I got some 25,000 votes and lost.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, ducked the opportunity to explain to this House why he is a Member.

[Lord Snape]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said earlier that he was just like everyone else: a hereditary Peer, and one could not tell the difference between the two. Did he think that when we walked through from the Division Lobby a moment ago there was some confusion among noble Lords as to who was the former railwayman and who was the Scottish landowner?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I could not possibly comment on that nor tell the difference between the two. It was a pleasure to be in the Lobbies with the noble Lord, Lord Snape, and I was glad that we had a good conversation. However, I say again to my noble friend Lord Cormack that if really wants to have a Division on every single amendment, he may find this Bill delayed a bit more. That is the law of unintended consequences. I suggest that my noble friend does not try it again.

[Lord Cormack]

Surely my noble friend understands that, having had well over an hour on his amendment, it was time to move on. It was the general wish of the House to move on. His amendment was really without the scope of the Bill. It would be an admirable subject for a separate Bill and I would support it, but what we have seen today—I hope that my noble friend, having provoked me, will concede this—is a rather sophisticated filibuster to ensure that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not complete all the amendments. That is a disgrace, given the overwhelming support he has in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I gently remind your Lordships that we are meant to be discussing Amendment 5, which is about Standing Orders and the replacement of vacancies among people excepted from Section 1.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think that that was as a result of an intervention from my noble friend, so perhaps I could just finish my remarks but also say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that this is a short Bill of three clauses. The Maastricht Bill was four clauses long and that was debated for days and days in Committee on the Floor of the House in another place and then in this House, again for several days. The size of the Bill has no relevance to how much it should be debated.

As for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with his little lecture on amendments, I look forward to seeing his submission to the Procedure Committee to describe amendments in different ways. I accuse the Liberal Democrats of stretching every single sinew of the clerks’ patience in order to find ways of putting amendments down. I remind my noble friend Lord Cormack that this is the first time, the first day I have spoken on this Bill. He has spoken far longer than I have during the passage of this Bill.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The amendment!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I will get back to the amendment, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, if you deliberately curtail debate in this House, those of us who oppose this Bill will find other ways, perfectly conventionally correct, to continue that debate.

[Lord Rennard]

Will the noble Lord recall his own very deep anger, which I witnessed, against repeated filibusters during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2011? He decided then that perhaps we should change the procedures of the House to prevent such filibusters. I wonder whether he is still of that view.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I very gently repeat the encouragement I made a few moments ago that the House should address Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I shall make one very short point: what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has misunderstood in all of this is that although I oppose this Bill, I am prepared to accept it in exchange for an appointments commission, which I think would be extremely sensible. With that, I finish my brief intervention.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, briefly, I think we should look at rejigging the balance between the parties represented here, because freezing the 1999 position is silly. I suspect that when we get to Amendment 9, that is the one I shall support. They are not grouped properly, but I pre-warn noble Lords that I think they are interesting and we should look at them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, this is not a sensible amendment. We have one absurd system for electing hereditary Peers at the moment, which it is proposed be replaced by another. While I could not begin to justify the system of elections that takes place at the moment, I could no more justify the establishment of a commission to do it. The only justification for the status quo is that it is the status quo, and it is best to leave that until we do a radical reform of the House of Lords, which should of course end the election of hereditary Peers entirely.

There are a whole lot of problems in Amendment 32 and the construction of the commission which one could go into, but I am not sure that it is necessary. Rather, I make the point that the best thing to do—this is my fundamental objection to the Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott—is nothing in respect of the existing House of Lords until there is a sufficient consensus or a Government who are capable of leading towards a radical reform of the Lords, which should fundamentally replace this House with an elected or federal second Chamber. To tinker with the precise way that hereditary Members of this House are appointed, whether it is by some absurd system of election, to be replaced by some equally absurd commission, seems entirely beside the point, playing the game of my noble friend Lord Grocott, which is to make tinkering changes to essentially preserve the status quo. I am not in favour of preserving the status quo—I want radical reform. The Brexit crisis we are going through at the moment and the huge public discontent in the country mean that we can no longer duck this issue of a fundamental reform of this House, and we should put paid to all these tinkering changes.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for reminding us of what happened in 1969 in the House of Commons and the argument that took place there that any change to your Lordships’ House would ultimately mean that it would demand more authority and be able to use its powers more vigorously. To some extent, this argument was made again, not nearly as effectively, during the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, and proponents of the Act said, “No, it won’t happen”, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who was then Leader of the House.

I wonder whether the House agrees that while initially that was the case, as the years have rolled by the House feels itself even more legitimate, being shorn of hereditary Peers. The automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords came to an end in 1989. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said some time ago—that we are all equally legitimate or illegitimate in this House—but the 1999 Act changed something. Therefore, the Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will also change things and allow people to take even greater authority than they would otherwise have done.

I agree with the noble Lord about the status quo. This is not a satisfactory place: I have argued that consistently over the past 20 years. I understand why my noble friends Lord Northbrook and Lord Trefgarne have proposed the amendment. They have tried to solve the conundrum expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and find a different way to honour the promise made in 1999, which my noble friend Lord Elton spoke so eloquently about before he had to leave, and this is their solution.

I must say that I am not entirely convinced, but it is a good effort. To return to a previous debate, a proper statutory appointments commission could also look at questions such as party balance, age, interests and expertise, commitment to participate and regional distribution, which I think is increasingly important. Of course, if we had an elected House, we would have solved all those problems, because people would decide. It is therefore unfair to accuse my noble friends of trying to overcomplicate matters. The system we have at the moment is actually very simple and straightforward. It is not adequate or perfect in any way, but it is at least an attempt to try to solve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is trying to solve through his Bill.

[Lord Grocott]

It obviously does not even begin to solve the problem, because the elephant in the room is that the only people eligible to fill these vacancies will continue to be those who have inherited titles. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, said that if you happen to have inherited a title, that gives you a dispassionate view of the world. Let me put it in more personal terms. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is an hereditary Peer. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, is a life Peer. Explain to me the crucial difference. I thought that they were both Tories who normally voted Tory and are indistinguishable from one another in that respect, but according to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, there is a fundamental difference between people who inherited the title and others.

How can it possibly continue to be right that 900 people, in this country of 60 million plus, who happened to have inherited a title have a one in 900 chance of becoming a Member of Parliament by being successful in an hereditary Peers’ by-election; whereas the rest of us—not us life Peers, but the remaining millions—have a roughly one in 75,000 chance of being a Member of Parliament? They have to get elected to do it. Why on earth should the descendants of Messrs Trefgarne, Colgrain, Caithness and Strathclyde have this assisted places scheme, as it has been referred to, which is denied to the rest of the population? Unless someone can give me a sensible answer to that, we will have to agree to disagree and, I hope, vote very soon.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am not aware that anyone has made an argument in favour of the hereditary peerage since the end of the previous century. That is why, as I briefly tried to explain, the hereditary peerage came to an end in 1999. We are dealing with the dissatisfaction with the Labour Government. Let us remember who created these by-elections and introduced the Act: it was a Labour Government, whom the noble Lord supported. It was unsatisfactory at the time. I know that it was intended to continue to stage two. That has not happened yet, but we are patient and should continue to be. After all, it was in 1911 that the Liberal Prime Minister promised us reform on a popular basis, and no doubt we will get to that debate later.

I hope that that clarifies for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that no one is trying to defend the current position, but we do not want to create a wholly appointed House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments but I was provoked to do so by the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He was around in 1999; indeed, I am pretty sure that he played a major role in what took place then. It is all very well for the likes of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to pray in aid the agreement that came about then and use it as an excuse to say that it was a solemn and binding—he did not use that particular phrase—way to reform the House, that it was at only an initial stage and that he intended to continue that reform later, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows full well how the 1999 agreement came about. It was accepted by the Labour Government because the Conservative majority in the House of Lords at the time was enormous. Despite the equally enormous Labour majority down the corridor as a result of the 1997 election, that Conservative majority, in which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, played a major role, made it quite plain that it was either this particular deal or no reform of the House of Lords at all. So let us not have any nonsense that this was merely stage one and talk of solemn and binding promises.

Indeed, that agreement came about without the knowledge and permission of the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. The leader of the Labour Peers in the House of Lords lost his job as a result of the agreement. He was a descendant of Lord Salisbury. I would have thought that it takes a lot to shift a Salisbury from your Lordships’ House, but that is exactly what happened. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows not only where the bodies are buried but I suspect wielded a shovel himself.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I really do think that I would try the patience of the House if I even attempted to respond to the noble Lord, so I will not do so, except perhaps another time in the bar.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, while it is attractive and interesting to look back at the past and see what happened—what the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has been saying is interesting—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, Amendment 13 is a refined version of the amendment I moved in Committee. It again suggests that once the Burns report has passed into law any excepted person will remain a Member of the House of Lords for 10, rather than 15, years after that date. Limiting the term to 10 years would help the pace of the reduction of the size of the House but would still keep the by-elections after the 10-year period. I am open to suggestion that they could cease when House of Lords reform is complete, including a review of its powers. I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

As I understand the amendment, and I am not sure I entirely understand it, my noble friend is trying to co-operate with the idea in the Burns report to reduce the total number. I have not looked at implementation or at paragraphs 29, 35, 50 and 51 of the Burns report, but I think the notion is that once the House of Lords has been reduced to a certain figure, hereditary Peers should not be part of that figure. If they leave after 10 years, however, presumably they will be replaced. I wonder whether my noble friend thinks that will help the reduction.

Earlier in the debate, a view was taken that if the overall size of the House reduced, the portion of hereditary Peers would increase. I agree. However, it would still be a lower proportion of the House than when the elections first took place in 2000 because the size of the House has increased so much. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will find that reassuring.

[Lord Adonis]

I have read this amendment twice, and I do not understand how it works. However, I shall address the big issue underlying it, which is the size of the House. Being today in the business of calling a spade a spade, I might as well carry on doing it because it is in my nature. This obsession with reducing the size of the House is entirely beside the point. If we are to have a large appointed House and its purpose is to function at least reasonably effectively and to keep its membership up to date, it is sensible to make new appointments. Choking off new appointments is basically a preservation activity by existing Members to see that the House is not increased in size by new Members, which would create a greater sense of illegitimacy because the number will be large. To be completely frank, that is not pursued out of any great constitutional principle. It is purely an act of preservation by existing life Peers who do not want to make this House look any more illegitimate than it does at the moment. The best thing to do is against the interests of the House in the short term because it would deprive us of new Members who might—how can I phrase this delicately?—be of an age where they would participate actively and fully in the work of the House, which some noble Lords tend not to as they—I probably ought not to pursue that line of argument because it will not be popular with some noble Lords.

The point is that the Burns report is being, and has been, used—it is the latest in-vogue thing in your Lordships’ House—to pretend that reform is being done while in fact no reform is being done. That idea is as old as the hills. In this House it is always important, to pursue a sense of legitimacy and progress, that some reform is sponsored. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has a special working group looking at very modest, tinkering reforms for this House so that he can pretend that he is in favour of progress, although, when he is present, he opposes substantial reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, this amendment provides—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, may I just check to which amendment my noble friend is speaking? Is it Amendment 15, in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack, or Amendment 16 in his own name?

[Noble Lords]

Amendment 14!

[Lord Strathclyde]

All right. Thank you very much.

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, this amendment provides that,

“future vacancies … be filled using a method which ensures that over time excepted hereditary peers are elected on a basis which retains a fair representation of hereditary peers representing Scotland”—

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as I have used the word “maintaining”—

“while over time reaching the same proportion … in relation to the total number of excepted hereditary peers as the proportion of MPs for Northern Ireland and Wales”.

I am not going into extensive detail on it, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has talked about, the unfair treatment of the Irish representative Peers or the Scottish Peers. In fact, there used to be 28 Irish Peers who sat for life on the part of Ireland. However, after what I hope was my erudite exposition, at this hour I am not going to detain the House. For Scotland, 16 Scottish Peers were elected under the Act of Union, and this was maintained until 1963.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said I had missed out the situation with Wales, so that is where there is a change in the amendment. He reminded me of the Act of Union of Wales of 1542—although I question that because research for Committee revealed that there were two Acts, of 1536 and 1543, and they should really be called the Laws in Wales Acts, which has been the legal title since 1948. To qualify for by-elections, their peerage would need to have Welsh connections, with priority, as for Scotland and Ireland, being given to those who use their main residence for the purpose of claiming expenses.

This is an excellent opportunity to redress the scarcity of hereditary Northern Ireland Peers and maintain the number of elected Scottish hereditary Peers. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand my noble friend’s intention, which is to try to guarantee some sort of regional representation in this House. That is very important, but I am not convinced that this is in fact the right way to do it. His amendment talks about, “hereditary peers representing Scotland”. Being someone who comes from Scotland—I was born in Scotland and live in Scotland—I do not suppose that anyone in Scotland thinks I am representing them. Indeed, the whole purpose of this House is not to represent anyone; we represent ourselves.

[Lord Snape]

The noble Lord is being too modest. After all, he owns a large chunk of Scotland, so who better to represent it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is a very kind thought from the noble Lord, but I do not represent Scotland or anyone in Scotland any more than he represents railway workers, train drivers, signalmen or anyone else involved in the transport industry. I hope my noble friend will withdraw this amendment and take it away.

[Lord Adonis]

My noble friend Lord Snape takes huge offence at that remark by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He represents in his person all the railway workers of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Snape]

If I may say so, none of them Members of this House, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, said earlier.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Okay, my Lords, I can see that I have lost that particular argument with the noble Lord, Lord Snape.

At the end of the last amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, wanted to place on the record exactly what was going on. That was his version—his truth. But what is also going on here is an attempt to create an all-appointed House with no guarantees of representation from anywhere in the UK, as laid out in this amendment, which of course would be solved if we had an independent statutory appointments commission. It is in no way an argument to say that, just because the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, believes he is right, no one from any part of the House should be able to argue against him. I have witnessed the noble Lord arguing many times on Bills, and it would be an absurdity to change the rules to stop him, any more than it would be to stop my noble friend Lord Caithness.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am absolutely in favour of every Member of this House expressing their views on whatever subject is before us in a reasonable way and for considerable periods of time. The problem we have here is that it is not only me who wants this Bill to go through but the overwhelming majority of people in this House. There is a tiny minority, all of whom we have heard from today. They are perfectly at liberty to speak—I fully support that—but I do not support their right to use procedural tricks to thwart the will of the majority.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not look forward to the next Labour Government, but there will be one. When that Government come in, I look forward to seeing, in their first Session of Parliament, a House of Lords Act, or a fully formed constitutional reform with this change at its heart. That is how things happen in this country: you win elections and control the legislative agenda. There is an opportunity for Private Members’ Bills, but this is a major constitutional issue and I do not think it is appropriate for the Private Members procedure. That is the underlying problem. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I disagree on most things, coming from opposite sides of the political fence, but we share a birthday and stand shoulder-to-shoulder on opposing this piece of legislation, because it is the wrong thing to do.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before I—and, I suspect, many others in this House—lose the will to live, I declare an interest: Lloyd George knew my great-great-grandfather, and that is why I am here. I also share a reflection from my great-grandfather, Stanley Baldwin. When he arrived in this House, he said, “It is one of life’s great ironies that I am arriving in a place to which I have sent so many people, devoutly hoping never to see them again”. I suspect some of their descendants have contributed to these proceedings. This is the law of intended consequences, rather than the law of unintended consequences.

There are 90 hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House. I would suggest that the fact that so few of us turn up at these proceedings, following this Bill, and an even smaller number take part is not an accident. Most of us have absented ourselves quite deliberately, first, because there is an obvious conflict of interest, and secondly, because, although I have not taken John Curtice-type soundings on this, I suspect that the great majority are strongly in sympathy and in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I wanted to put that on the record.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

Noble Lords opposite tend to disagree but when I discuss this with people—with taxi drivers, people in shops, people on the Underground—I find that the presence of the hereditaries in this House is seen as a continuation of a great tradition. It is a link with history. Therefore, I think that those who wish to end the hereditary principle for topping up the 92 hereditary Peers are mistaken.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stated that the hereditary by-elections are absurd. They are no more absurd than any other elections in many bodies around the country. Very often a small group of people decides between one, two or several candidates. Indeed, I think Her Majesty the Queen still chooses between two candidates for the position of Archbishop of York or Canterbury. I am not sure whether that system still exists but it certainly did so.

I disagree with part of my noble friend Lord Cormack’s speech but I agree with his proposal that the by-elections could be made rather less arcane—I think that is a better word than absurd—simply by stating that the electoral college for each group should be amended to include all the Peers of that party grouping. I have always thought that there was not much logic in the Standing Orders as established in 1999 which provided that those originally elected as Deputy Speakers should be replaced by hereditary Peers elected by the whole House rather than by only the survivors of the electoral college.

I have spoken on this for long enough. I earnestly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

I hope that those who were joshing and jeering at my noble friend Lord Trenchard will think very carefully about what they have done. He is entirely entitled to his view, whatever it is. We have had some rather pious expressions about the reputation of the House. What is the reputation of this House if my noble friend cannot say what he strongly believes without being jeered by Members of the Opposition? They should reflect very carefully as we continue the debate.

On the question of the reputation of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was not to know, when he agreed to this Friday being an opportunity for Committee on the Bill, that it would bookend a week in which it might appear to many outside that we spent a great deal of time talking about ourselves. We spent Monday talking about ourselves. We are going to spend today talking about ourselves. Noble Lords around the House have pleaded that we should try to finish today’s proceedings as quickly as possible.

The Government have made it utterly clear that the Bill is not going to become law. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, knows that. I know that. The rest of the Committee knows that. Would not the easiest thing be for the noble Lord to say that he was not going to continue with these proceedings? The reputation of the House would then be saved and we could continue to discuss some of the real and serious issues that face this country and the rest of the world, which are the issues that shine a light on this House in the brightest and most sensible possible way.

Some noble Lords have asked why we are where we now are. Perhaps next to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I know more about this anybody else. When at the end of 1998 I became Leader of the Opposition it was for me to close the final agreement, if I can call it that, with the noble and learned Lord, who was responsible for the Bill that removed two-thirds of the Conservative Party from this House at a stroke and left patronage intact with the Prime Minister. My then noble friends—in fact, noble Lords from all round the House—were not very keen on that. They were not prepared to go unless some sort of signal was made about the seriousness of a stage two reform, which was to move towards a democratic House.

I will now cut a very long story short. On the final afternoon, the noble and learned Lord and I made the agreement on what came to be known as the Weatherill amendment—although perhaps it should now be called the Irvine compromise; they are two great servants of Parliament who acted seriously to help the governance of this country. The noble and learned Lord then said to me, “You know, these by-elections will never happen because we intend to come forward with a reform”. We had built in a fail-safe that no by-election would take place until the year after the following general election, which would have given the Labour Party three or four years to come forward with a proper reform.

My noble friend Lord Wakeham, who sadly is not here today, was invited to set up a royal commission to look at all these things, which would form the basis of new legislation. This was well understood and I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, that I, too, was happy to make this agreement because if that reform did not take place, then we would have the by-elections. It was a small price to pay to get the Bill, which became the House of Lords Act 1999, through this House as quickly and sensibly as possible, thus retaining the reputation of this House—and we have been waiting all this time.

My noble friend Lord Cormack reflected that we were bringing an end to this system but in doing so, we would also create something new: the only way into this House would now be by party or prime ministerial patronage, and many of us object to that. In the very good debate that took place on Monday, there seemed to be the start of a consensus that there should be a better way of getting into this House. Should we not then work together? Should the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with all his experience, knowledge and time in both Houses, and I and others not come forward with a proposal for a proper and serious independent Appointments Commission, with all the other things that are required? As part of that, we could remove these by-elections.

The other thing that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was not to know when he wrote and introduced this Bill and agreed to today’s Committee was that the House of Commons would now take an interest in these issues. We have recently had an email from the chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Bernard Jenkin, saying that he will carry out an investigation into all aspects of how people get into this House. If we were to pass the Bill and send it to the House of Commons, it would immediately be thrown out because the Government would quite rightly say, “We’ve got an important committee of the House of Commons looking at these things. Let us wait until then before we come to a decision”.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, had a good debate at Second Reading. We had an excellent debate earlier in the week and have had a short debate today. I urge him: would it not be better, for all our sakes, to pull back from the Bill now and work together on a proper consensus that unites government and opposition in providing a proper, long-lasting reform to the House of Lords?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a varied debate, although the one thing that has united everyone who spoke, including the mover of the amendment, is that no one spoke to the amendment. I do not make a criticism on those grounds, but we have essentially had a Second Reading debate, and I fear that we would have that on all 60 amendments should we proceed. I shall be brief as I also note that this first group has taken an hour, and there are 60 amendments. Most of them were put down yesterday, which makes them quite difficult to deal with, and all of them have been degrouped, so we have to have nearly 60 separate debates. I think 60 hours on this would be a bit much and try the patience of all of us—quite apart from how we would appear to the world outside.

The first amendment simply removes Clause 1(1), and basically wrecks the Bill. It certainly does when considered with all the other amendments of that type. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has put down amendments to remove subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) et cetera. He is perfectly entitled to do that. We are a Parliament with parliamentary procedures, and he is entitled to put down as many amendments as he likes, but he acknowledged in his opening remarks that he is totally opposed to the Bill. That again is a perfectly legitimate and honourable position to adopt, but if he wants to adopt that position, he either should have voted against the Second Reading or should vote against the Third Reading. He has another opportunity to do that, but instead he has just put down huge numbers of amendments, which I do not think he would be too proud of if they were read out one by one—as I have already mentioned, he did not actually move the first amendment. Seven or eight amendments simply vary the date at which the Bill comes into operation: one month, two months, three months. Let us have a serious debate on serious amendments if we are going to, but of course the problem that the noble Lord, and the House, face is that this is such a narrow and specific Bill. It is a two-clause Bill, dealing with a very specific problem, and it is almost impossible to amend sensibly. However, of course your Lordships can reject it. You either support the end of the hereditary by-election system or you do not, and I hope that the House will come rapidly to a decision on that.

Since everyone else has made something close to a Second Reading speech, I will just remind the House what my Bill does. It was motivated by a general feeling of unease, but was precipitated by the by-election on 18 April this year—I know most Liberal Democrats feel just the same about this as I do—where there were seven candidates and an electorate of three. That must be a world record. Of the seven candidates, six did not get any votes, and the seventh got all three votes—100%, which, as I said at the time, beats North Korea. That is not sustainable. It is so easy to get a laugh out of this, because the present system is laughable. Whatever the motives or arguments over why it came into operation, and we can rehearse those again and again, it is what has happened as a result of the decisions made in 1999 and the resulting section of the 1999 Act that has resulted in this by-election system, which has now been going on for 17 years and has led to 30 new Members being brought in via this mechanism.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, thinks that somehow the 92 hereditaries are precipitating a major reform of the House. “It is a long time coming”, is all I can say to that, and he did not offer a timescale on which he expected that to be achieved. So the objective has not worked. We have had all these by-elections, and they will go on in perpetuity. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is straightforward with the House about this, as I am sure he will be, he will acknowledge that if the Bill fails the by-elections will continue and we will end up at the stage where the grandchildren of the Peers who were first exempted find themselves in the House of Lords via this bizarre mechanism.

I repeat that my Bill hurts no one. I was mildly concerned about the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell; I am not trying to bribe anyone at all. I know many hereditary Peers who support what I am doing. I make no criticism whatever of the hereditary Peers in this House. The reason why they are excluded from the Bill is not that I am looking for their votes in passing it; frankly, I probably do not need them. It is because many of them, such as—it seems invidious to mention any of them, but I shall mention one—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, make a tremendous contribution to the work of this House.

So the Bill is nothing to do with that point. It is simply saying that any honest, straightforward person looking objectively at the system that exists would say, “Let’s get rid of it with a clean break”. Then, admittedly, over a period of 30 or 40 years, there would no longer be any hereditary Peers in the House. That is not the objective of the Bill but a consequence of it, and I do not think it is a revolutionary consequence. The noble Lord, Lord True, who I know very well, mentioned that it might result in a change in the party balance. I think 10 Tories have been elected so far under the by-election system over a period of 17 years. I know we move slowly in this place, but that does not strike me as a revolutionary overnight change. This is incremental reform in the best traditions of the group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which I have supported over many years. I am often criticised for that; I am called a “constitutional conservative”, and I can live with that. It is common-sense incremental reform to a system that to want to sustain is, frankly, pretty indefensible.

The indications I have are that there is very strong support for this in the House. I would much prefer it if we could just acknowledge that, complete Committee stage and see what happens to the Bill. The worst of all solutions would be if we had hour after hour after hour of debate on amendments that, frankly, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would be terribly proud of if their biographies were to be written. That would not bring the House into disrepute but would not leave it looking very good, particularly after the splendid debate on Monday—I can say that as I did not take part in it, though I listened to most of it—when it was clear that the wish of the House was that it should be smaller. It must be pretty well a first in the world for an organisation to say, “We want fewer of us”. I cannot think of any other organisation that I have had anything to do with that would say that. So the House realises that its size affects its performance and reputation, and that we should look for ways of reducing its numbers. Here is a way that would reduce its numbers over a period of 30 years to the tune of 92.

I make this appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I think I speak for most people here, whatever they feel about the Bill: I ask him not to persist with the remaining 59 amendments, most of which are in his name. I ask the noble Lord to acknowledge that when he stands up to speak.

We have had a good debate. We need to come to a conclusion on this amendment, which would remove subsection (1), which, as I have said, would wreck the Bill. The House needs to decide whether it wants to do that, and I hope the noble Lord tests the opinion of the House. Most of all, I would like to hear him acknowledge that we should move on and have a Report stage in due course, and formally move the rest of the amendments.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord said we should wait and see what happens to the Bill. We know what is going to happen to it. It has no prospect whatever of becoming law, so why is he bothering to continue with it?

[Lord Grocott]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been around longer than me. It is not me who is bothering to continue with today’s proceedings. For the previous three months, since the Second Reading debate on 9 September, I have looked with joy to check how many amendments were being tabled. Until Tuesday of this week there were six, one of which was mine. Then, lo and behold, inspiration clearly struck two or three of our Members and 60 amendments were tabled overnight. I am sure they were considered—no, it is best not to be sarcastic. I will put it as neutrally as I can: I do not think they were done with the intention of improving the Bill. It is up to those who tabled them. The impetus today has not come from me. It has come from those who want to hold us here for hours discussing largely meaningless amendments, and I call on the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to acknowledge that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the point that I made in my short contribution. Since he started this process, it has excited interest from the House of Commons. We are all being consulted by the Commons on what we think the future make-up of the House of Lords should be. The Government have said they are not going to support the Bill. He says it is not in his hands, but it is entirely in his hands; if he said he was happy to withdraw the Bill, I am sure my noble friend Lord Trefgarne would be very happy with that.

[Lord Grocott]

I really do not want to prolong this, but the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggests I have powers that I do not possess. The debate in the House of Commons started in April this year, when a 10-minute rule Bill was unanimously passed at First Reading that would remove all hereditary Peers. That is the view of the House of Commons and it predates anything that I have done here. Let us get the chronology right.

--- Later in debate ---

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“( ) In section 2, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Standing Orders must provide that vacancies amongst the 90 excepted hereditary peers which are reserved for a political party must be filled by a method which increases the representation of the party which is most under-represented in the House comparing the proportion of politically affiliated Members of the House who are members of that party with the proportion of votes cast for that party at the most recent general election.””

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I hope that nobody will think I am filibustering when I say this, but we had a really interesting debate on Amendment 1, which to some extent was a repeat of Second Reading, and we have had a couple of Divisions. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out that we could carry on like this for another 60 hours or 50 hours—it is becoming pointless. I take nothing away from what the noble Lord has done; he is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian and he believes very strongly in all this. But he will recognise that although he is winning Divisions and putting in Tellers from the other side, it is not an edifying spectacle on a Friday morning—still morning, just. I hope that the Government might indicate whether this debate is going to change their minds, and if there is not another and better way in which to resolve the differences between the two sides.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is being a bit negative about proceedings this morning. After all, if we look at the result of the two Divisions, we can see that the persuasive powers of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, are enormous—he has doubled the number of noble Lords in his Lobby. If we go on like this with a few amendments, he could well carry the day. Then of course his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has 500 years of heritage and favours to repay, also deserves another crack at it. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, because his father was of course a Labour Peer. Maybe it is our fault that he is here. I do not want to class him as an arriviste—

House of Lords Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 21st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend in this debate on the Second Reading of his Bill. As he has ably demonstrated this morning, he knows a great deal about the House of Lords; he has studied it for a long time and has come forward with a workable proposal. I also thank him because he consulted widely on the Bill, right across the House, amended it from his original draft and has now presented it to the House. As he explained, the aim is to reduce the total number of Members of this House. My noble friend produced but one reason for it: the way Parliament is regarded as a whole from outside, by the public. I am not entirely convinced that the Bill would necessarily solve that. The reasons why Parliament is not held as well as it once was are many and varied; we do not need to go into those today.

There are a number of ways to achieve what my noble friend wants. The simplest—the noble Lord, Lord Steel, talked about it—is an automatic age limit of 80, and there are powerful statistics to demonstrate that, in an ever-ageing House, that would be a good way to reduce the numbers. However, for obvious reasons, that is deeply unpopular in this House and, apart from anything else, I am not entirely convinced that it would be legal, given the various equalities Acts that exist.

More Peers could be encouraged to take voluntary retirement from the House, which was impossible until two or three years ago. You could take a leave of absence but you could not exclude yourself permanently. We now can, and there are various ideas about how that could be made more practical. My view is that, given that this House is due to be relocated in a few years and we are to be removed from this building, we may well find then that more Peers are prepared to take voluntary retirement than is the case today.

The system that my noble friend has alighted on is well precedented, and the last time it was used, it worked. However, I have to say to noble Lords from all parts of the House that it is not an easy or pleasant system to go through—in fact, it is deeply unpleasant, and my noble friend and I have both been through it. It is precedented by the late Lord Weatherill’s amendment to the 1999 Act, which generally speaking has been a success. I wonder whether, if we were to use this for the whole House, my noble friend has considered some de minimis provisions for very small parties. We have only one Member from the Green Party, and it would be difficult to reduce her by 25%. I am not sure whether UKIP is a full designation in this House, but it may well be under the terms of the Bill or if it becomes an Act.

My real purpose is to question the motivation, intention and necessity behind the proposal. I spent a bit of time reading some statistics from the very helpful people in the Library. Taking the basis of the Bill—that the House should not be bigger than 600—I decided to test how many people currently attend the House. We all know the overall figures: just over 800 Members are entitled to sit, and that is an increase since 1999-2000 of about 220. Since 2015-16, the figure has increased by about 100. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the daily attendance has increased by a similar number: currently, about 100 more Peers attend on a daily basis than did in 2009-10. What is interesting about these daily attendance figures—these are averages across the Session—is that none is anywhere near 600; in fact, none breaches 500. Therefore, they are well within the limit set by my noble friend. In the current year, the average daily attendance is 471 and in 2009-10 it was 388.

The next interesting statistics to look at are for Divisions over the past 10 years, which measure a good degree of participation in the House. In 2009-10, which was a short Session, the average number of Peers voting per Division was 206. The most recent figures available, for 2015-16, show that there were 114 Divisions with 362 Peers on average voting. It is interesting that, in the past 10 years, the highest average number of Members voting per Division was 394 in the 2013-14 Session. What I extrapolate from these figures is that the problem may not be quite as big as my noble friend thinks.

In discussing this with many Peers, I have realised that there seems to be more of a problem at Question Time, when the House is very full indeed. Again, there are many different reasons for that, and perhaps we should ask the Procedure Committee to consider moving Question Time to another time of the day to see whether that would lessen the problem. My question is: is the proposal necessary?

Comparing this House to the House of Commons is also not as helpful as one might initially suggest. We are a very different and varied House. We are not like Members of another place. We do not represent anybody and we do not have constituencies, but we are very regionally based. There are full-time Peers here, sitting on all the Front Benches, who devote their lives to this House. There are Peers who have retired from their formal employment who devote a great deal of time to this House, and there are those who are in part employment or full employment. In other words, people come when they can to try to play their part. I worry that the Bill would create the spectre of a full-time and, increasingly, fully paid House. My point for the Minister is to be very cautious in accepting this.

This will be an extremely useful and interesting debate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Does my noble friend not conclude from the statistics that he has drawn to the attention of the House that the issue is the relationship between attendance and participation?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, no, I do not. I produced the average daily figures for attendance and for voting in Divisions. It is entirely fair that some Peers come here and do not necessarily vote. There may be many reasons for that, including for the Cross-Benchers, who often do not vote in Divisions for their own political reasons.

The point I was about to make, which my noble friend might enjoy, concerns whether the House of Commons would welcome the Bill. We know what the House of Commons thinks. Only a few short years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, produced a Bill in the House of Commons to have a largely elected House of Lords, which was passed overwhelmingly. I wonder whether enough time has gone by to ask the House of Commons to consider again a reduction Bill rather than an elected Bill.

Coalition Government: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Perhaps I may be the first publicly to pay tribute to her time as chairman of such a distinguished committee as the House of Lords Constitution Committee. She has served with distinction, but she has also served at a most fascinating and interesting time. The noble Baroness reminded us that she has served for four years, which is a long time. In those four years we have seen constitutional innovation, to which the report alludes several times over.

As the noble Baroness explained, I gave evidence to the committee and read its report. One of the reasons I wanted to speak in this debate was to say how good I thought its conclusions were. It is extremely clear and well-written, and therefore effective. I am sorry to hear that the Government were unable to give a written response but I have great faith that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will be able to say that he, too, on behalf of the Government, thinks this a very positive report. There is much to take away, not just by politicians but by senior members of the Civil Service, particularly the Cabinet Office, if this thing—this coalition—ever happens again.

It was useful for the noble Baroness to remind us, as is written in the first paragraph of the report, what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said about this being the first coalition to come about because of the arithmetic calculation after a general election. That demonstrates just how rare a coalition is in the United Kingdom. We have no reason to believe that it will necessarily happen again in the near future. It probably will not happen again, but I dare say that we ought, like the boy scouts, to be ever ready and ever prepared for it to happen again.

In May 2010 I was one of those who were initially sceptical about the desirability of having a coalition. I felt that my right honourable friend David Cameron probably could have carried on a minority Government, but that was not the prevailing view. It was said that people generally liked the idea of politicians sorting out their differences in private before coming to Parliament with an agreed set of proposals. Whether that is true in practice remains to be seen, but it is true that people like that idea. What else is true is that this coalition has been remarkably successful, particularly in barring the noises off, and has had huge success in reform of some of the most important parts of the public sector—education, welfare and health. What Government, within 12 months of a general election, would not be delighted to hear that the United Kingdom now has the fastest-growing economy in the G7; that there are more people in work today in Britain than ever before; that unemployment is falling; that the twin scourges of inflation and interest rates, which most of us have lived with for most of our lives, are at rock bottom; and that month by month, year by year, the deficit is being cut and we can see, over the horizon, a time when it will be eradicated? That is a success for the coalition.

I have no idea whether there will be another coalition Government. If there is, the only point with which I took minor issue was on the formation of a Government. It is important for the nation to have a Prime Minister and to know who that Prime Minister is as quickly as possible. We should not create a system that allows for a Prime Minister to linger on in 10 Downing Street for too long. If there is no pressure to come to an agreement on who the new Prime Minister should be, it could drag on for a very long time indeed. I cannot imagine that it was a pleasant experience for Mr Brown as Prime Minister to be twiddling his thumbs among the packing cases, waiting for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party to reach some sort of agreement. There is all the difference between the parties agreeing that there should be a coalition and that therefore there should be a Prime Minister, which should be announced as soon as possible, and for the Palace to do the all-important ceremony with which it needs to be involved, and the final troth being made on a coalition agreement and, most importantly, on what the terms of the first Queen’s Speech should be. I agree with the idea that there should be a longer time-lag between the general election and the Queen’s Speech. A period of 12 days was mentioned, which is perfectly sensible.

I want to make four observations on the report with regard to the House of Lords. The first relates to paragraph 145 and the Salisbury convention. The report admirably says and the noble Baroness repeated it:

“We recognise that a practice has evolved that the House of Lords does not normally block government bills, whether they are in a manifesto or not. There is no reason why this practice should not apply when there is a coalition government”.

I quite agree. In fact, that is my understanding of what the Salisbury convention has become and how it has developed over many years. There is a faint absurdity in this unelected Chamber denying ourselves the right to debate a Bill which has already been passed by the elected Chamber and we should not do it. One can imagine the truly appalling circumstances in which the House of Lords needs to reserve that right, but as a matter of course that should be part of the Salisbury convention. That is why I very much regret that in this Parliament it was the Official Opposition who supported the wrecking amendments on the Health and Social Care Bill. That was an extremely foolish and dangerous thing to do and should not have been done. When the Labour Party eventually gets back into government it should beware that an irresponsible group in the House of Lords does not hang that around its neck.

The second issue that I want to draw attention to is that of collective responsibility and the boundaries issue, which is eminently well described in paragraph 71. The paragraph refers to the evidence that I gave. I said that it was a “dirty trick”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that it was,

“a flagrant breach of an agreement”,

although he happily conceded that he was delighted that the Liberal Democrats had done so.

Either way—and I stand by what I said—what I dislike intensely in paragraph 71 is how David Laws MP prays in aid the collapse of the House of Lords Bill in the House of Commons. I just want to say that this is a desperate rewriting of history. The House of Lord Bill was passed in the Commons on a huge majority at Second Reading. Nearly 80% of MPs voted in favour of it. What happened thereafter was a failure of the Government and of the Minister who was responsible for it, the Deputy Prime Minister, to reach an agreement, particularly with the Opposition, on the programme motion. That was not the fault of a few dozen Conservative Members of Parliament. As we all know in this House, this issue was always going to be controversial and could never have been passed by one party acting on its own. It could have been passed only by agreement. If the Deputy Prime Minister had spent more time early on in the Parliament working with the shadow Cabinet and the Labour Party, he might have got that agreement.

I cannot help thinking that the issue of House of Lords reform became a convenient argument, and that is all, and that even if House of Lords reform had gone through, the Liberal Democrats would have found a different excuse for reneging on the deal that they had struck in the coalition agreement.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

May I clarify something with the noble Lord? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister took the decision to withdraw from pushing ahead with the vote on the programme motion?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am sure that is the case, but only on the basis that he knew it was going to be lost. He knew that the Minister responsible for the Bill could not guarantee that they had support from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. That is why it collapsed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Is not the point here that up until now it has been accepted that it is an almost sacred duty on the part of Governments to implement Boundary Commission reports? The moment that we have political parties fiddling around with them for their party advantage, all is lost. What happened was therefore quite reprehensible and disgraceful.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Even more than that, my Lords, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth will remember well, for years and years the Liberal Democrats would lecture us and the people of this country on the monstrous unfairness of the electoral system, but they themselves then ensured that we now have the most unfair system because, as my noble friend suggested, they blocked the entirely correct work of the Boundary Commission.

The third point that I want to make is about Lords Ministers. Again, I very much agree with the conclusions of the report. The point is that over the past 30 or 40 years we have had many eminent and senior Ministers coming from the House of Lords, most recently under the Labour Government. This is good not just for the House of Lords but for the Government; it is good for the process of government to have senior Peers with a lot of experience—outside politics sometimes—who play a part. I understand the pressures within a coalition to provide ministerial seats in the House of Commons, but I have to say that in May 2010 when I went to Downing Street and was invited by the Prime Minister to take on the burden of Leader of the House of Lords, which of course I was delighted to do, I asked how many Liberal Democrats I should expect and I was very surprised to be told: absolutely none, because there had been an agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister that all the Liberal Democrat Ministers would be made in the House of Commons. There was a terrible silence as I realised that it was impossible to come back and sit on the Front Bench without my noble friend Lord McNally and other Liberal Democrats who have served so ably. There was a quick discussion and I am delighted to say that on the Front Bench in the coalition we have had a very effective team of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives working together. My regret is that very few of the Liberal Democrats are actually paid for the work that they do, particularly not the Whips. I very much hope that, whether we have another coalition or return to single-party government, more senior Peers will be represented in government as Ministers. That will ultimately be to the benefit of the nation.

The last point that I want to make is about the wash-up. That is an ugly little phrase to explain something that is extremely necessary and, on the whole, works effectively. It was much abused, I am sorry to say, in 2010 by the outgoing Labour Government—with some collusion, I have to accept, from the then Opposition. The purpose of the wash-up is to tidy up Bills as quickly as possible with the agreement of the whole House. It should not be for shovelling through vast swathes of legislation unscrutinised, undebated and not even discussed or indeed improved, and I hope that we do not see those days again. They could be circumstances if there is some emergency legislation that needs to be passed quickly but, again, that should always be done with the agreement of the usual channels in both Houses.

I have spoken for far longer than I intended to. Perhaps I may just finish by saying that, notwithstanding what I think has generally been the success in government of this coalition, I hope that we will not need another one but, if we do, that it should work effectively and smoothly in the interests of the good governance of this country. I think that the reading of this report by the Government and the Civil Service will be an effective way of ensuring that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot help but start by thanking our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for the service that she has given to the House in chairing the Constitution Committee. Her seniority, her experience and, above all, her effortless charm in keeping us to the disciplines—there are quite strong personalities around the committee—were in play in almost every meeting. We will miss her. It will be very different to serve on the committee without the noble Baroness.

In 2010, I had the honour of being the first Liberal to speak from the government Benches in a new Parliament in the post-war period. The last time the Liberal Party had come into government was in the 1930s. Therefore, it has not been entirely surprising to me that Britain’s constitutional conventions over the past 80 years or so have been formed on the basis of single-party government. We had much material to work on in this inquiry but, as our report points out, the pluralism of party politics that the public have now embraced is a trend that may well continue for some time. Our inquiry therefore had not just to look carefully at the events of the past four years but to anticipate other permutations and formulations that might be thrown up in future.

In my coverage of the report, I want to highlight just a few points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave a comprehensive view of most of our findings but, particularly in the light of the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is important for me to illustrate and highlight some of the more dramatic moments in our deliberations on this report.

I was a member of the Constitution Committee at the time of its report on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. While I heard all the arguments, I continue to be slightly surprised that the idea of a fixed term continues to frustrate constitutionalists in some quarters. If it affects government formation negotiations by making parties look at alternatives to minority government, surely that is a good thing. Minority government is the antithesis of the stability in decision-making that is needed for the economy, business and policy planning; in my own area of work, it is seen as extremely damaging to the conduct of foreign affairs. That is not the reason why the public are opposed to it, but we also know that the public are opposed to repeat elections. I therefore agree with two of our witnesses, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Oliver Letwin, who told us that having fixed-term Parliaments allowed Governments to plan for five years, thereby enabling them to think long term.

I also emphasise the importance that the committee placed on the right versus the duty of an incumbent Prime Minister to remain in office until a successor is identified, particularly as we come up to the 2015 general election. The one observation that I would make in that regard is that, given the language deployed in the media in referring to an incumbent Prime Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave us some of the colourful highlights relating to the previous Prime Minister—it would be extremely helpful if the Cabinet Office undertook to advise the media on the desirability of this expectation and its place in our constitutional framework.

Let me turn to the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. We had a lively discussion with experts, witnesses and among ourselves about this during the inquiry. The report mentions the departures from collective ministerial responsibility as seen in 2013 when the two parties of the coalition voted in opposite Lobbies on an amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. That decision was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister some six or seven months earlier as a response to the collapse of the House of Lords Reform Bill, so it did not come entirely as a surprise. I would have thought that, given the self-interest of the Conservative Party in those proposed boundary changes, seven months of reflection on what might happen might have led to the Conservatives reappraising their position on House of Lords reform, but it was not to be and we had a good debate about it.

The committee felt strongly that collective responsibility has served our constitution well and therefore emphasised that breaches of it should be rare and only ever a last resort. Moreover, it went on to recommend that a proper process should be put in place to govern any setting aside of the responsibility, stating:

“Such setting aside should be agreed by the Cabinet as a whole and be in respect of a specific issue”.

While I entirely agree with the recommendations of the committee as set out in paragraphs 77 to 79 where there is single-party government—particularly as collective responsibility was breached in recent memory in quite significant terms by the Labour Government—I do not think that we have been entirely realistic in these recommendations where they apply to coalitions. For example, the duty of the Cabinet as a whole to resolve differences is somewhat difficult when five members of the Cabinet are from one party and nearly 20 are drawn from the other. It is self-evident that the majority can always outvote the minority. My preference would be for the pragmatism of David Laws MP, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred, who felt that when agreements are made and subsequently diverted from there are naturally consequences for other agreements.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has contested this version of history, so let me put to him that in my view the more fundamental breakdown of collective responsibility was witnessed in the House of Commons debate on the Queen’s Speech in 2013 when one side of the Government—the Conservatives—tabled an amendment on their own Government’s programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to this in her speech. The PM went on to give those Conservative rebels a free vote, although it was evidently not an issue of conscience, and we had the spectacle of junior Ministers voting against their own Government without any consequences. Our report states:

“Dr Stephen Barber … said, that ‘the acquiescence by the Prime Minister to allow ministers to vote “against” provisions in the Queen’s Speech ... is constitutionally more serious’ than the division between coalition partners over the boundary review amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. This is because of the role of the Queen’s Speech as a vote of confidence in the Government … previously any minister who declined to support the government on the Queen’s Speech would have been expected to resign”.

In the instance of the Conservative rebellion on the Queen’s Speech, I took the opportunity to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when on 9 April he came to have his annual evidence session with the committee, how that had transpired. If I recall correctly—I have not seen the transcript yet—the Deputy Prime Minister told the committee that the issue had not been raised in a Cabinet committee and was not even discussed in the quad. Therefore, in terms of a rebellion where the Prime Minister gave the Conservative rebels a free vote, the committee’s recommendation that these sorts of things must be discussed and a resolution must be sought within Cabinet clearly could not have applied, because the issue was not raised in Cabinet.

The last point that I will make about collective responsibility again relates to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for whom I have the profoundest respect, as he well knows from my interactions with him. The anecdote that he just told on how, but for his intervention, there were not meant to be any Liberal Democrat Ministers in the House of Lords was an example of a little breach of collective responsibility. If that sort of evidence were to come out, I would have expected it to be in the noble Lord’s memoirs, which we would be rushing off to Waterstones to buy. Saying it first in giving evidence to our committee and repeating it in the Chamber of the House stretches collective responsibility, because that discussion clearly took place in Cabinet. I fear that the noble Lord wishes to come back on that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I shall say two things in my defence. First, I had not been appointed, so there was no collective responsibility issue. Secondly, and perhaps more important—this is something that I did not say but should have said—this was born out of a misunderstanding by the Deputy Prime Minister about how Ministers are appointed in the House of Lords. Given that the Liberal Democrats are so deeply federalised, he assumed that it was an issue that would be solved in the House of Lords, which is perhaps rather a different slant from the one that I gave in the first place.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I am sure that we all appreciate that clarification. Nevertheless, I am not sure that any of us will not use it to give Mr Clegg a hard ride next time, if there is a next time.

Let me conclude by coming to the role of the Civil Service. I will touch on this issue merely to say that both we and the Institute for Government, in its more extensive study, heard about the difficulties encountered by a junior partner in government, represented by a junior Minister, when commissioning policy advice. I wholeheartedly agree with the committee’s recommendation that Ministers should be able to commission confidential briefings from officials within their departments for the purpose of developing policy for the next Parliament without those briefings being disclosed to Ministers from their coalition partners. If this practice were not formalised, we would be in the invidious position whereby, although the Opposition would have access to Civil Service advice, as would the party that hosted the Secretary of State in the department, the Lib Dems, where they had only a junior Minister, would not have access to policy advice. That cannot be right. I look forward to the Government’s response on that matter and join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in expressing disappointment that the Government have not been able to provide a response before the debate today. I can only assume that the Government have failed to come to a collective view on this.

To conclude, it was a fascinating inquiry. Our witnesses were extremely knowledgeable and, particularly the political ones, often passionately engaged with the issues. I hope that the Cabinet Office will take the opportunity to act on the recommendations of this report. In so doing, it will lend clarity in future scenarios, when the public may yet again choose coalition government. The report’s recommendations on collective responsibility stand for single-party government as well, so the report contributes overall to good and accountable government.

Civil Service: Permanent Secretaries

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we have time. I think it is probably my noble friend Lord Tyler first and then the Labour Party.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend has touched on the relationship of Ministers to Parliament. I wonder if he would just reinforce and reiterate the point that all Permanent Secretaries are answerable and accountable to Parliament for the whole of their departments, including of course the performance of the head and leadership of that department. Has he noted the suggestion that Secretaries of State might be subjected to confirmatory hearings by departmental Select Committees? Would he confirm that it is the Government’s view that, in this relationship, it is the Secretary of State to the department that is responsible to Parliament? So would it not be more appropriate for the Secretary of State on appointment to be subjected to a confirmatory hearing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Party.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I am not aware of any complaint from our side of the House about the selection that Mr Jack Straw made on a short list of three which he insisted on having, for which he perfectly properly said that he took final responsibility for his department. Are not those Permanent Secretaries, having been appointed, also entitled to expect that the person who makes the final decision stays in office for slightly more than one year? In the case of both the previous Government and the present Government, can we see a little bit more continuity in Ministers than we have had in recent years?